Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
At the 2008 Netroots Nation conference I interviewed Bob Barr and asked him about his position, while in Congress, that Wiccans should be kept out of the military. He repudiated his previous actions and said that he likened it to gays in the military, which he was once opposed to but now favors.
So I'm rather disgusted to see Barr write in the Atlanta Journal Constitution about the recent dustup at the Air Force Academy regarding desecration of a Wiccan worship spot that had been set up with permission of the school.
A few years back, when I was in the US Congress, I took the Army to task for permitting the practice of Wicca on its bases, including at Ft. Hood in Texas. After speaking with a number of officers and military leaders, and meeting with several former military who adhere to the practice of Wicca, I was convinced that a belief in or practice of witchcraft, was not necessarily incompatible with the good order and discipline essential to a military lifestyle. However, one might legitimately wonder just how far such tolerance should extend.
The US Air Force, at no less a prestigious location than the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, has taken the notion of religious tolerance to a new level, in creating an outdoor worship area for pagans. The site, apparently sacred to pagans, consists of an inner and an outer circle of large stones. I'm sorry, but this truly is hilarious. Don't get me wrong, if someone "has little or no religion and delights in sensual pleasures and material goods," which is the definition of a "pagan," then I say live and let live.
But I have to tell you, if I were in the Air Force and was being commanded by an officer who practices hedonism as a religion (another part of the definition of "pagan"), and who dances around a circle of stones in the woods carrying a lighted candle, I would be more than a little worried about following him into battle.
As opposed to someone who believes they are literally eating the body and blood of Christ during a Catholic service? Or someone who believes that God literally told Abraham to kill his son, or told the Israelites to slaughter the Midianites? Or someone who believes in talking snakes and global floods?
Fuck you, Bob Barr. You obviously lied to me and you are just as bigoted and stupid as you were when you were in Congress.
Politics
Comments
Posted by: Herod the Freemason | February 19, 2010 9:16 AM
Note for Bob Barr: 'Pagan' actually has a meaning (without your need to create one):
'a villager, a rustic, [From Latin Paganus}'. -Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | February 19, 2010 9:21 AM
A google search on the phrase "has little or no religion and delights in sensual pleasures and material goods," turned up this blog post as the first hit. The second was by a Christian writer called Allan Turner who attributes it to Websters Ninth Collegiate Dictionary.
Please note I only read enough of that site to find the citation and notice that he keeps refering to God and Jesus, I know nothing else about Mr Turner.
Posted by: Matty | February 19, 2010 9:27 AM
It's so peculiar how people can clearly see how ridiculous everyone else's religious beliefs are.
"Ha, ha, they really thought Apollo drove the sun across the sky! No, but really, this cracker turns into Jesus in my mouth."
Posted by: Kathy Orlinsky | February 19, 2010 9:36 AM
Where the #### is he getting these "definitions"?
According to a number of sites, it's from Webster's dictionary.
Posted by: VorJack | February 19, 2010 9:40 AM
Politician: poli- from the Greek πολυ, meaning several, and the French tête, meaning face. Thus, a politician is someone who is at the very least two-faced.
(old joke)
Posted by: abb3w | February 19, 2010 9:40 AM
Ed, I'm not surprised Barr would lie to you. In my opinion, when people hold bigoted views--as Mr. Barr certainly does--it would be a miracle to expect any sort of change.
Posted by: Goldbrick4 | February 19, 2010 9:41 AM
Oh, and it looks to be definition 2 of pagan at Merriam-Webster's website.
Ergo: not the primary definition.
Posted by: abb3w | February 19, 2010 9:43 AM
Is he still pretending to be a libertarian?
And is anyone else in the Libertarian Party calling him out on this decidedly anti-libertarian position of his?
I'm not at all surprised at this hypocricy. Back in 2008, being a Republican was an embarrassment, so Barr pretended to be a libertarian instead. Now the infantile bigoted teabaggers are dominating the public debate, so Barr is back on their sewage-drenched bandwagon. He really has no more integrity than Gerry Brown.
Posted by: Raging Bee | February 19, 2010 9:47 AM
Now all we have to wait for is a large pro-wiccan movement and I'm sure he will change his mind again. Although how Barr can be trusted to know what "individual liberties" are at this point is beyond me.
Does he still have does sexy teenage hipster glasses btw?
Posted by: deep | February 19, 2010 9:50 AM
Kathy Orlinsky, I always recall the sage words of Sam the Eagle from the Muppet Show: "I've always had the greatest respect for other people's crackpot beliefs."
Posted by: Squiddhartha | February 19, 2010 9:55 AM
Barr is a shining example of how fringe parties/movements are easily usurped by even more fringe candidates and ideologues. The Libertarian Party died with Harry Browne.
Happy?
Posted by: 10,000li | February 19, 2010 9:55 AM
Oh, and it looks to be definition 2 of pagan at Merriam-Webster's website.
Dictionaries these days tend to present word-meanings as actually used in the culture, rather than as they are "supposed to be", recognizing that usages inexorably shift. "Pagan" does, in fact, have some usage to mean irreligious, and possibly immoral (ie. w.r.t. the strictures of the locally dominant religion, usually Abrahamic). So this leads us to the neat circular situation where a secondary usage, having been codified (at least in the minds of prescriptive grammarians -- a linguistic theory that fits well with the authoritarian mindset) in the dictionary, is now being invoked as normative, over and above the primary definition, on the authority of the dictionary.
Posted by: Eamon Knight | February 19, 2010 9:56 AM
In a similar vein, I'm sure the Provincial government of Ontario in Toronto would be surprised to learn they are "lacking in urban refinement or polish", "unsophisticated", and "parochial".
Posted by: DaveL | February 19, 2010 9:59 AM
Isn't there one of the regular posters on here who actually is a self identfied pagan who served in the US military?
Posted by: Matty | February 19, 2010 10:02 AM
Raging Bee @9.
I'm not part of the Libertarian Party, so I can't tell you what they're saying,* but back in '08 I did not vote for Barr because I didn't believe he'd left behind his old school boll weevilism. This coming from his mouth does not surprise me.
(*I suspect the CATO libertarians are suitably appalled, and the Ron Paul libertarians are saying, "yeah, what's wrong with burning witches?" Hopefully I'm being unfair to them.)
Posted by: James Hanley | February 19, 2010 10:04 AM
James Hanley,
Interesting that you ommitted the libertarian Libertarians. I wonder if the LP even has any libertarians still supporting it?
Posted by: 10,000li | February 19, 2010 10:09 AM
"Politician: poli- from the Greek πολυ, meaning several, and the French tête, meaning face. Thus, a politician is someone who is at the very least two-faced."
I believe that visage means face and tete means head. I suppose that would make a politician someone with two heads.
Posted by: Mandrake | February 19, 2010 10:17 AM
"Politics" from "poly" meaning "many", and "ticks" meaning "bloodsucking diseased vermin"
Posted by: phantomreader42 | February 19, 2010 10:42 AM
Bob Barr's posting is an unfortunate one, that I have not yet seen a follow-up statement being made to. The definitions that Mr. Barr has chosen to use are derogatory ones and not at all applicable to modern Paganism or Wicca. It is deplorable to belittle the beliefs and practices of the noble and courageous men and women that serve in the military.
The people that serve in the military deal with horrors that the rest of us will gratefully never experience or comprehend. To accommodate their religious practices is the very least we can do in assisting them with the support necessary to remain safe and healthy.
Prejudice (etymology: pre, justice. Judging without facts) is ugly. Choosing or evaluating your doctor, employer, employee, etc based on their religious beliefs rather than their qualifications and performance is an ugly form of prejudice.
If Mr. Barr has not done so already, I would hope he retracts his statements and makes a formal apology to the men and women of the Colorado AFA and Pagan/Wiccan communities.
FTP
www.thewicca.ca
Posted by: FTP | February 19, 2010 10:42 AM
Barr is a prick. There. I said it. He is being deliberately ignorant of the facts when it comes to modern pagan religions. Why he's doing this, I can only guess at, but I'll bet it has something to do with trying to appeal to a certain group of "readers", you know, the hateful, fearful, ignorant ones that like to think that their religion is the only "real" one.
Posted by: SmarterThanYall | February 19, 2010 11:06 AM
Thread.Win = True.
Posted by: DaveL | February 19, 2010 11:10 AM
Posted by: Herod the Freemason | February 19, 2010 11:12 AM
But I have to tell you, if I were in the Air Force and was being commanded by an officer who practices hedonism as a religion (another part of the definition of "pagan"), and who dances around a circle of stones in the woods carrying a lighted candle, I would be more than a little worried about following him into battle.
Interesting theory, Mr. Barr. Please provide the data correlating religious belief with military ability throughout history. I'm sure it will back you up.
Posted by: Taz | February 19, 2010 11:27 AM
I understand and empathize with your anger, Ed, but I can't say it surprises me that Barr is a liar and a world-class bigot. He's a crazy man and always was.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | February 19, 2010 12:09 PM
But I have to tell you, if I were in the Air Force and was being commanded by an officer who practices hedonism as a religion (another part of the definition of "pagan"), and who dances around a circle of stones in the woods carrying a lighted candle, I would be more than a little worried about following him into battle.
It would depend on which God(s) he was toasting at the time. We Pagans have lots of SERIOUSLY KICKASS gods and goddesses of war to choose from. All the Christians have is a wise spiritual healer that they have to twist into a plastic cartoonish Master of the Universe.
PS: Is there any creature more "hedonistic" than an active-duty soldier or sailor on leave?
Posted by: Raging Bee | February 19, 2010 12:12 PM
Ed--you always seem to beat around the bush. Please tell us what you really think.
Posted by: David C. Brayton | February 19, 2010 12:20 PM
The Webster Definitions have been part of an ongoing dispute between Pagans and people like Barr. The fact is that the definition of Pagan as a specific umbrella term for belief systems that incorporate Polytheism, Pantheism, and/or Animism in their theological framework is new as far as modern, living-Western Religions go. But prior to that pagan [note small p] was a word whose meaning was based on the dominant views of Christian Culture, to basically mean a softer antithesis to Christianity as opposed to their {Christian's} definitions of Satanism. Compare Webster's definition with this: "1Peter4:3--For you have spent enough time in the past doing what pagans choose to do—living in debauchery, lust, drunkenness, orgies, carousing and detestable idolatry." [just an example]The Culture of Christianity has deeply influenced the English Language here. There are a variety of words that various groups have attempted to reclaim and redefine over the years because the implication of those words in everyday language is such, that it is difficult to undue stereotypes, or to encourage people to change their behavior towards certain minority groups.
As far as Barr goes--I doubt anyone in the Pagan community is surprised. What surprises me is that he was supposed to be all about electronic privacy now. I find it odd that this story crops up, but his name is not mentioned in the other story about the school spying on students through their laptops.
Very telling.
Posted by: Seeing Eye Chick | February 19, 2010 12:22 PM
On February 19, 2010 9:47 AM, Raging Bee @9 wrote:
I'm not at all surprised at this hypocricy. Back in 2008, being a Republican was an embarrassment, so Barr pretended to be a libertarian instead. Now the infantile bigoted teabaggers are dominating the public debate, so Barr is back on their sewage-drenched bandwagon. He really has no more integrity than Gerry Brown.
In another thread, someone referred to this position as "Dennis Miller Libertarianism". Perhaps "Bob Barr Libertarianism" would be better.
Of course, since Barr was the Libertarian Party's candidate, I think that the Libertarian Party has disqualified itself from being taken seriously.
Posted by: Blue Nine | February 19, 2010 1:15 PM
"PS: Is there any creature more "hedonistic" than an active-duty soldier or sailor on leave?"
I'll call my Vietnamese half-siblings and ask what they think.
Posted by: 10,000li | February 19, 2010 1:19 PM
To me, this is the best argument for getting rid of chaplain's service in the military.
Posted by: Donna B. | February 19, 2010 1:21 PM
@Herod the Freemason - he's obviously getting his definitions from Conservadict.com the Conservative Dicktionary. Just as he gets his "history" from Conservapedia
Posted by: Keliel | February 19, 2010 1:39 PM
I see Barr uses the expression "religious toleration" rather than "religious freedom." He seems to think that the right to practice one's own religion is not a right, but a privilege that the majority can grant or revoke at will. First Amendment fail.
Wait, was it Barr who said, "We'll take the niggers and the chinks. But we don't want the Irish! Or the pagans!"
Posted by: Scott Hanley | February 19, 2010 1:55 PM
"But I have to tell you, if I were in the Air Force and was being commanded by an officer who practices hedonism as a religion (another part of the definition of "pagan"), and who dances around a circle of stones in the woods carrying a lighted candle, I would be more than a little worried about following him into battle."
But I have to tell you, if I were in the Air Force and was being commanded by an officer who practices cannibalism as a religion (another part of the definition of "christian"), and who gathers in teary-eyed groups and sings pitiful songs about their own lack of worth, I would be more than a little worried about following him into battle.
Posted by: SouthernFriedSkeptic | February 19, 2010 2:17 PM
Sorry but I agree with Barr, that Wiccans need to be kept out of the military. Because the USA military is made up PRIMARILY from superstitious-magic believing-demon fearing-buybull thumpers.
My daughter was in the navy and her supervisor tried to get her court-martialed and failed.BUT the court would not do anything to the crooked supervisor. SO she knew he was a buybull thumper and she had studied wicca. So she brought her 'devil headed' book with her to work, a voodoo doll made up like a sailor and started doing her MOJO on him. With in three days he had her transferred back to her home station. The other girls asked her what spell she used, she smiled, opened her spell book and showed the girl the blank pages of her note book, and told the girl she used his own superstitions against him.
So you see why the wicca must not be allowed in, as the xtian/islamic military can't handle all that magic!! ;-}
Posted by: CybrgnX | February 19, 2010 2:48 PM
And thus, linguistic evolution trudges on, irregardless of what we may think of these nonsensical and even paradoxical etymologies.
Posted by: James Sweet | February 19, 2010 2:49 PM
Ah, Bob Barr strikes out again. No news, move on. Unfortunately I live in the Atlanta area and have heard and read the ravings of that lunatic way too often. It has been many years, but while listening to one of the local talk radio fascists Barr called in and (as I recall) suggested that all the listeners go out, buy guns and prepare to start shooting jack booted thugs AKA your average government workers. Since he was in office at the time, I shouted at the radio - you'll be first fucker!
Posted by: ursa major | February 19, 2010 2:54 PM
I heard a different one: "Politics" comes from the words "poly", meaning many, and "ticks", meaning blood-sucking parasites. :-)
Posted by: Walton | February 19, 2010 3:06 PM
I agree with Barr that paganism is silly. Of course at the same time I have to point out that in many ways its belief structure seems far less silly than any of the other belief systems in the world and a lot less damaging to society and people.
Why is it religious people don't recognize that pointing out how someone else's faith is stupid/silly/misguided only creates a giant circular argument in which you end up with the only correct belief system ... atheism! [joke]
Posted by: dogmeatib | February 19, 2010 3:33 PM
Cbrgnx wrote: "The other girls asked her what spell she used. She smiled, opened her spell book and showed [them] the blank pages of her note book, and told the girls she used his own superstitions against him."
Ha! juju-jitsu.
Posted by: Chris Winter | February 19, 2010 3:57 PM
I think that definition of 'pagan' is an old-fashioned, somewhat arch usage similar to how we'd now use 'bohemian'. ie, it has about as much to do with pagan religion as 'bohemian' has to do with the Czech Republic or Slovakia.
Where they used 'pagan' I suspect they were alluding to the Romans, especially the upper classes or ruling classes. Caligula being the extreme example. That usage of pagan doesn't allude to druids and such.
Posted by: Jon Hendry | February 19, 2010 4:11 PM
Which is saying a lot, seeing as their 2004 presidential campaign was focused on the issues of opposition to driver's licenses and of reviving a theory of property title that's (thankfully) been dead for more than 400 years.
Posted by: Miko | February 19, 2010 5:11 PM
Actually Jon, the term pagan is a modernization of paganus which literally means country-dweller, or bumkin. IIRC, it started because the cities of Rome converted to Christianity before the farmers and rural people did. These people still retained their various religions, ranging from nature worship and farm-superstition to polytheism. The phrase has evolved through various incarnations as "everyone but Christians" and into Seeing Eye Chick's definition about @ 28.
And so we're clear, while pagan is often used as a catch-all term for nature-worship, it isn't necessary accurate to do so. Of course getting Neopagans and Wiccans to define their faith is often like teaching cats complex dance choreography.
Posted by: Tamarron | February 19, 2010 6:03 PM
Sweet @36
"irregardless" doesn't the "ir" negate the "less" making the meaning "ragard" making your meaning "And thus, linguistic evolution trudges on, [in] regard of what we may think of these nonsensical and even paradoxical etymologies."
?
Miko @ 42:
Which is why I ask, "Are there any libertarians remaining in the Libertarian Party?"
Posted by: 10,000li | February 19, 2010 6:31 PM
There are certainly many people in the LP who refer to themselves as libertarians. Enough so that at this point I would advise any one with a "serious" libertarian viewpoint to abandon the name because most people are justified in associating it with the nutjobs.
Posted by: deep | February 19, 2010 6:47 PM
Bob Barr never served in any branch of the US military.
Another privileged politician prattling on about what is best for the military.
Posted by: Pinky | February 19, 2010 8:26 PM
Maybe he confused pagan with P.A.G.A.N. - People Against Goodness And Niceness as a result of watching the remake of Dragnet.
Posted by: flherp | February 19, 2010 8:49 PM
While agreeing with Ed's characterization of Mr. Barr, we should note he duked it out at CPAC today arguing that we should be criminally indicting guys like the undie bomber, that we are a nation of laws or we are not and if so we should follow those laws, and we should not describe what we did as "enhanced interrogation techniques" and waterboarding but instead what they actually are, torture.
Mr. Barr also mentioned that the 104th Congress passed a law specific to handling cases like the undie bomber partly to insure that harsh sentences were available, i.e., life without parole and the death penalty. What he failed to note is that the Republicans were the majority party in the 104th, something I haven't heard until Barr claimed this law was passed in 1996 and I looked it up (I hadn't heard that a law was recently passed specific to cases like the shoe and undie bombers).
Posted by: Michael Heath | February 19, 2010 9:03 PM
"Actually Jon, the term pagan is a modernization of paganus which literally means country-dweller, or bumkin."
Actually, Tamarron, that doesn't matter at all. Some 19th century Oxford student might well have described an agnostic friend who likes to party as a 'pagan', not with hostility, and not implying much of anything about their religious beliefs, apart from not being a Christian believer.
For example, "Tom, you old pagan, what time did you get in last night?"
As I said, it's like calling someone a bohemian today. You're not literally saying the person is like a person from Bohemia.
Posted by: Jon H | February 19, 2010 9:16 PM
Sadly the Libertarian Party was mesmerized by the fact that more than three people outside the Libertarian Party had actually heard of Bar, unlike any candidate they had fielded previously.
It was obvious to anyone actually acquainted with Barr's record and previous comments that he was no libertarian.
It caused a rift in the party. Of course a rift in the Libertarian Party just means that they can't get the big booth at Denny's anymore.
Posted by: Lance | February 19, 2010 10:13 PM
Bob's been shown to have a capacity to change his mind. Most here probably applauded him when he changed his mind about homosexuals in the military. Perhaps, as far as being militarily led by one who practices consensual homosexuality, he realized he was wrong by taking note of the effective military leaders throughout history who were widely recognized for their homosexual relationships, and might even be said to have drawn strength from them, typically with other warriors. I presume anyone interested in his leadership and who thinks that his current thoughts are in error would appeal to his rationality and point out that in history the practice of paganism was likewise the spiritual belief of many very effective military leaders.
My readings in history show that many effective leaders, particularly in times of crisis, were gifted with flexible and rational minds. Barr should consider that and, if he really wished to emulate great leadership, act upon it.
Ridiculing him and calling him a snake and liar have a certain kind of satisfaction but are not likely to make him change his mind, nor bring about consensus for rational thought. Uh...Spock out.
Posted by: doug l | February 19, 2010 10:16 PM
Jon, I was pointing out the correct origination of the word, rather than upper class Romans. I then went on to support how it's a catch-all term for other-than-Christian. So this argument is rather silly.
Posted by: Tamarron | February 19, 2010 10:42 PM
Uhh doug, he's a libertarian who claims to support "abundant individual freedom" (his words). The fact that he acts like he doesn't know what that even means is a pretty good indicator that he isn't fit to be in a leadership position. And since this is a topic that he claimed he changed his mind on before, it kinda makes him look like a two-faced liar" rather than just "flexible".
Of course I'm sure that when he changed his mind on the homosexual issue that people were ridiculing him just as much (if not more so), and that's probably the reason he changed his mind. So I don't see why ridiculing him on this will make him any less likely to change his mind (or claim to). Unless of course he's so inflexible that he cannot change his mind when being ridiculed...in which case would also make him unfit to be in a leadership position.
Not to mention that his comments make me think he doesn't have any rationality to appeal to in the first place. Who in their right mind would think it would a good idea to publicly call a wiccan's sacred stones "hilarious" after running a campaign claiming to welcome all religions (I guess wiccans were ok as long as they could have voted for him).
Posted by: deep | February 19, 2010 10:44 PM
Pinky@46: IMHO, this is not sensible rhetoric. Just because a politician never served in the military doesn't automatically mean he/she is "privileged." Conversely, several politicians who DID come from quite privileged backgrounds have indeed served in the armed forces (John Kerry, both Ted and John Kennedy, etc.).
Also, you don't seem to realize how broad your criticism of Barr here really is:
Sensible politician John Smith, who has no military experience, in 1948: "We should integrate the armed forces."
Reaction to this by an insensible person: "John Smith never served in any branch of the U.S. military.
Another privileged politician prattling on about what is best for the military."
Posted by: daniel rotter | February 19, 2010 11:00 PM
I am a 20 year veteran of the US Air Force and served many overseas tours including two tours in Iraq and Kuwait. What you say is partially true the civilian government does set overall policy such as where and when we go to war etc.. But there are many many military regulations and policies that are developed internally and for good reason. Much of the civilian community does not and cannot fully understand military life, I do not say that out of any malice just as a matter of fact. The issue of WITCHES serving openly in the military may have some public opinion on its side but among the military it is not a favored policy and I tend to lean on the side of the military than the whims of the public that so easily was fooled into voting for Obama.
Posted by: Donalbain, channelling AFSGTSAM | February 20, 2010 5:33 AM
Re: 9, 45, 50: The first presidential election where I didn't vote Libertarian was 2008, because of Barr's obvious bigotry. I left the LP last year after 22 years of membership and now call myself a "small-l libertarian."
Posted by: Henry Ikeda | February 20, 2010 8:15 AM
Kathy Orlinsky "'Ha, ha, they really thought Apollo drove the sun across the sky! No, but really, this cracker turns into Jesus in my mouth.'"
It's weirder than that. It's still a cracker, but it's crackerness turns to Jesusness. It's food dualism, or something.
Keliel "Just as he gets his 'history' from Conservapedia."
Oddly, Conservapedia's page on paganism is probably the least reality-averse page I've ever read there.
flherp "Maybe he confused pagan with P.A.G.A.N. - People Against Goodness And Niceness as a result of watching the remake of Dragnet."
People Against Goodness And Normalcy. Dork.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | February 20, 2010 9:40 AM
Donalbain, channelling AFSGTSAM "The issue of WITCHES serving openly in the military may have some public opinion on its side but among the military it is not a favored policy and I tend to lean on the side of the military..."
Why do you hate me so? Is it because I also protect religions that you don't like?
Posted by: First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States | February 20, 2010 9:42 AM
@58
WIN!
Posted by: deep | February 20, 2010 10:17 AM
@ 58 & deep @ 59,
Donalbain @ 55 was snarking. He was ridiculing the troll AFSGTSAM's arguments in this thread and a handful of others the past couple of days; all of which were ridiculously and fatally defective not to mention completely vacuous. Thus, his sign-off: Donalbain, channeling AFSGTSAM. [emphasis added]
Posted by: Michael Heath | February 20, 2010 10:37 AM
@ 60,
And so?
Posted by: Modusoperandi | February 20, 2010 11:12 AM
"She turned me in Newt Gingrich once -
{Long pause while everyone observes that Dingo clearly isn't Newt]
Oh, it got better."* - Dingo
-----
* well someone was going to get around to it eventually...
Posted by: DingoJack | February 21, 2010 10:25 AM
Eamon Knight @13
Seeing Eye Chick @28
These two (and maybe others) have it right.
There are two different definitions of "Pagan": one that the Pagans themselves use and another one that Barr is using (which some definitions indicate as "offensive").
What Barr is doing is rhetorically equivalent to two groups using the word "Jew", which has a standard meaning and another offensive antisemetic meaning (which isn't in any polite dictionary). Barr is basically making the analogic case that the Jews call themselves "Jews" with the antisemetic meaning! What Barr is doing here is pretty vile.
Posted by: davep | February 21, 2010 12:22 PM
I run the Pagan group at the AF Academy and I really feel sad for some of you. So Pagans want to get together and worship. So what? Are we bothering you or anyone else while we meet in private? No.
All of you who are against us, but for yourselves sound like a dictator we had to deal with a few decades ago. Are you superior to us? If so, how? Because it's not because your religion came first, that's for damn sure! I just can't understand how one can sit there and say that my spirituality (which most in the military don't have a clue about other than the lies they were told by the Church) is "not a favored policy". Do you even know what you're talking about. The policy that I swore an oath to defend is the Constitution of the United States of America. Check out the first Amendment. There is no policy against our faith. The only thing against our faith is Dominionist Christianity. They have problems with us serving our country, but would rather have a military comprised of people who follow a book containing stuff like this:
Exodus 21: 20 And if a man smite his slave, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. 21 But if he live for a day or two, he shall not be punished, for he is his money.
Deuteronomy 21: 18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, 19 then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out 20 unto the elders of his city, and 21 all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die.
1 Timothy 2: 11 Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. 12 I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent.
Numbers 31: 17 Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man by sleeping with him. 18 But all the young girls who have not known a man by sleeping with him, keep alive for yourselves.
2 Kings 6: 28 This woman said to me, "Give up your son; we will eat him today, and we will eay my son tomorrow." 29 So we cooked my son and ate him.
Isaiah 13: 15 Whoever is found will be thrust through, and whoever is caught will fall by the sword. 16 Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses will be plundered, and their wives ravished
Deuteronomy 22: 28 If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. 29 Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.
Deuteronomy 22:5 A woman shall not wear man's clothing, nor shall a man put on a woman's clothing; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your GOD.
Deuteronomy 7:1 When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations ... then you must destroy them totally. 2 Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy.
Yet our practice of honoring the Earth and giving praise to that which sustains our lives is too much for them to handle. I'm pretty sure Jesus wouldn't be down with that and I'm pretty sure that he said something like "judge not, less thee judge thyself" and something else like "he who has no sin cast the first stone."
I take bullets the same way Christians do. I bleed the same color Christians bleed. Yet for some reason Pagans aren't good enough. It can't be because we don't have warrior roots (Greeks, Romans, Celts, etc...). So what is it? Do we threaten you? You say that our faith is "silly", but are you actually afraid of the things we can do? If you believe that we can do those things, then you are admitting that you believe in Gods and Goddesses that are not your own. But that's not allowed is it? Does the story of "Saul and the Witch of Endor" trouble you?
Well, I'll tell you what. We're not going to have a repeat of the Burning Times, Crusades, or Inquistions despite whether you want to or not. So if you don't like the policy of the United States of America that protects our rights to worship freely, then there are plenty of flights that leave the US every day that you can take straight to a country were they tell people what faith they'll be.
Some of you are obviously bigots, but are you racist as well? Would you like to separate everyone by color again? It's the same thing whether you think so or not!
Evolve already!
Posted by: Brandon Longcrier | February 21, 2010 12:53 PM
Army veteran here. I was only in a relatively short time (four years with one 15-month deployment under my belt), but I did have the opportunity to serve and work with an extremely wide-variety of soldiers from different branches, and several other countries as well. The fact is, most soldiers I know and met may not agree or be entirely comfortable with someone's beliefs, but ultimately don't really care. Belief in Jesus (I also characterize myself as Christian for the reader's edification) in no way guarantees you'll shoot straighter or follow your commands better than someone "who dances around a circle of stones in the woods carrying a lighted candle." (I have trouble reconciling the idea that somehow swinging a lighted incense burner down a long isle with people chanting in latin is somehow better or less ridiculous than Mr. Barr's mischaracterization.)
One great thing about the military is that once you really get down to brass tacks (like someone with extreme religious views trying to blow you up for no reason you can really comprehend), issues like sexual orientation (I also served with a soldier or two who were gay, unfortunately due to current policy were not allowed to do so openly), race, ethnicity, religion, political orientation, etc. really don't seem nearly as important and as polarizing as they did before.
Posted by: dogmatichaos | February 21, 2010 1:03 PM
Brandon Longcrier, "Donalbain, channelling AFSGTSAM" was parodying a person who posts here (and with whom we pretty consistently disagree). Don't mistake one spoof of one actual person for the whole. We might not believe what you believe, but we do believe in your liberty to do so, up to the point where your liberty infringes on another's liberty (...up to the point that their liberty infringes on your liberty...).
Posted by: Modusoperandi | February 21, 2010 1:05 PM
The following is a working description of Paganism / Earth-Centered Spirituality that I've come up with from the research I've done over the past few years. Dictionaries will do you no good. They are wrong and very much outdated.
Disclaimer: One can never speak for all Pagans due to the wide range of beliefs and I'm no exception. I'm only posting about what many or most believe in.
Earth-Centered spirituality (Paganism) has been around since the beginning of time and has been practiced by cultures the world over. It is unclear when the term “Pagan” (Latin “Paganus”) was first used, but according to historians, the 4th Century seems most plausible. Even though the term is fairly new in terms of how old the Earth is (~4 billion years old), the spiritual aspect is not. For example, the oldest evidence of supernatural worship comes from the remains of what archeologist are calling a female Shaman who was found in what is now the Czech Republic and dates back to ~30,000 BCE. You heard correct, I did say "female Shaman". It is actually thought that females may have been the spiritual leaders before men. This was most likely due to the fact that women were (and still are by many) seen as magical beings. They were seen as such because they had cycles, their bellies grew, and then they created life. Modern Earth-Centered spirituality is very similar to ancient and modern-day Shamanism and Native American spirituality and it would not be uncommon to find Earth-Centered practitioners (Pagans) who incorporate Shamanism and/or Native American practices into their own practice. Each (Shamanism, Native American, and Earth-Centered) have their own way of doing things, but are similar because they all see the Earth, Plants, Trees, Animals, and every other living thing as spiritual or divine.
Like many other faiths out there, Earth-Centered spirituality is also made up of many different traditions (denominations). Take Christianity for example. Christianity is the umbrella term that many different denominations such as Catholic, Baptist, Church of Christ, Lutheran, etc… fall under. The same is true for Earth-Centered spirituality. Paganism is the umbrella and various traditions including but not limited to Wicca, Druidism, Heathenism, Celtic, Egyptian, Stregheria, and many others fall under that umbrella.
Most Pagan traditions involve the worship of both Gods and Goddesses, but not all. Some traditions of Paganism only worship one God or Goddess and others may not worship Gods or Goddesses at all. Instead, they may find that they have more of a connection with nature, the Earth, the Universe, or just energy in general. Pagans may be all over the board with the way they all worship, but being able to worship whoever or whatever works for you is what makes Paganism so wonderful. This path is a very personal path, but many still choose to gather in groups to add a sense of community to their worship practices.
Mythology, folklore, and legends are very common among Earth-Centered practitioners and the psychology of spirituality plays a very important role as well. For example: Many believe that Gods and Goddesses aren't "real". Their energy and what they stand for is real, but they themselves are not. Meaning that many don't believe that there are puppet master like beings in the heavens pulling our stings. Instead, many of us believe that in order for the ancients to better relate to the things happening around them, they created myths to help explain things more clearly. This is when Gods and Goddesses were created. And when they were created, they were given names and faces, which personified them so that people could better relate to them. These faces and names still remain today and many of those ancient Gods and/or Goddesses are still called upon by Pagans all over the world. A large number of Pagans believe also believe that the Gods and/or Goddesses reside within every human being and that calling upon them is basically looking within yourself for the answers that you seek. Accessing the Gods / Goddesses can be tricky though and is where vehicles such as mediation, prayer, ritual, etc... come into play.
Many people believe that Pagans worship the Devil, but that couldn’t be further from the truth. Then again, I guess that all depends on what you think is the Devil. Do Pagans worship the Devil described in Christian mythology? No. But if you're Christian and you believe that people are Devil Worshippers just because they worship anything (Mother Earth, Nature Spirits, etc...) other than the God of Abraham, then I guess in your own little world that you're right. We believe that the Devil is just another myth created by a faith group to personify evil. Is the Devil real? Definitely, but only to those who believe in it. Some traditions of Paganism (Egyptian) do have concepts of final judgment like in Christianity, but others do not. Most Pagans believe in rebirth and/or reincarnation of some kind vs. final judgment, so eternal salvation and/or damnation isn't really talked about that much in the Pagan community.
Some faiths claim to be the "Truth", the "Way", etc..., but not Paganism. We do not claim to have all the answers. We only worship in ways that feel right and good to us and if that should ever change, then chances are, so will our practices.
As you probably gathered already, Earth-Centered spirituality involves having a connection with the Earth. Many also strive to have a similar connection with the rest of the Universe as well. Each tradition under the umbrella of Paganism practices differently, but having a connection with and seeing all things as blessed and interconnected could be seen as a common theme that is shared between most Earth-Centered traditions. This connection with all things is many times accomplished by incorporating the sacred Elements of Earth, Air, Fire, and Water into one's spiritual practice. There are many Gods, Goddesses, Spirits, Animals, etc... associated with each of the four Elements. Becoming one with those Elements is how many connect with the fifth Element, which is Spirit. These five Elements are represented in the Pentacle (Upward pointing Star with Circle around it). Many assume that the Pentacle is a symbol of Devil worship, but again, that would be an extremely wrong assumption to make. Each of the five points of the Pentacle represents one of the five Elements and the circle surrounding the Pentacle represents the connection between the Elements and eternal life; much like what a wedding band represents. It is no coincidence that the Star is a perfectly balanced object.
The Wheel of the Year is a modern term used to describe the cycles of the Earth over a year. It is made up of eight holy days that many refer to as Sabbats. It is debated which Sabbats were celebrated by whom and how far back, but many modern-day Pagans choose to celebrate them all. Two of the Sabbats are Solstices (Yule and Midsummer/Litha), two are Equinoxes (Ostara and Mabon), and the other four (Beltane, Lughnasadh, Samhain, and Imbolc) mark other important and sacred times of the year. Sabbats follow myths that explain how the seasons come and go and may even be acted out like a Play during rituals. The rituals that are performed by Pagans to celebrate the Sabbats can be very elaborate or very simple. Some people choose to practice alone, where others may form small to large groups called Covens, Groves, Circles, etc...
Circles represent infinity, interconnectedness, and even protection. For these reasons, Earth-Centered practitioners have been using Circles as places of worship for thousands of years. Prior to starting a ritual, many Earth-Centered practitioners will cast a Circle, which is done to symbolically create a sacred place for worship and protection against all things (energy, spirits, etc...)negative or unwanted. Other faiths perform similar rituals using sensors with incense or maybe even holy water to “cleanse” their places of worship.
Outdoor worship circles have been used since ancient times in many places around the world and by those of many spiritual traditions. Some of these ancient circles, such as Stonehenge, Castlerigg, and Avebury in England, are among the outdoor worship circles used for present day spiritual services. Many of these outdoor worship circles are found throughout the United States. Some, such as the Bighorn Medicine Wheel in Wyoming, Cahokia Henge in Missouri, and Newark Circle in Ohio, are pre-historic and have astronomical alignments as is the case with many of the stone circles of old Europe. Most outdoor worship circles presently in use in the USA have been created within the past one hundred years and are used for congregate worship services and passage rites, including weddings, baby blessings, and funerals. There are several types of outdoor worship circles, including stone circles, woodhenges, sacred groves, and labyrinth circles. Some outdoor worship circles are part of facilities of religious institutions, some are part of private homes and estates, and others are part of institutions serving the public, including campuses, prisons, hospitals, military installations, art centers, and botanical gardens. Virtually every tribe of the Native American Nations has or had its own tribal sanctuary or sacred landscape. In virtually every country in Europe, our ancestors erected megaliths and constructed stone circles as places of worship and religious celebration. As we study, adopt, and bring the religious practices of our ancestors into contemporary relevance; we too have begun building sanctuaries in natural settings.
Posted by: Brandon Longcrier | February 21, 2010 1:06 PM
"Don't mistake one spoof of one actual person for the whole."
Believe me, I've received a lot of support from people of many different religious backgrounds and I was not pointing the finger at any one faith, but I am pointing the finger at the Dominionist Christians.
Thank you for you response.
Brandon Longcrier -
Posted by: Brandon Longcrier | February 21, 2010 1:12 PM
Brandon Longcrier "...but I am pointing the finger at the Dominionist Christians."
So do we. Except that our finger points up. And it's probably a different finger.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | February 21, 2010 1:16 PM
LOL
Posted by: Brandon Longcrier | February 21, 2010 1:22 PM
Brandon - Perhaps you’re a 'balatrones pagani'.* - Dingo
---
* 'preaching to the choir' is hardly efficient, in fact it's likely to make me reach for my 'devil's advocate' cap just to be perverse, especially when I feel I'm being patronised. - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | February 21, 2010 1:58 PM
I follow discussions, posts, news, and blogs like this on a regular basis. I have often wondered just where "religion" got it's start, and wondered if maybe it wasn't just a form of political control. However, based on my personal views, I really don't care. What I do care about however is a persons CONSTITUTIONAL right to Freedom of religion. If I remember my history classes on the constitution and the founding of the 13 American colonies, wasn't that one of the big reasons why America was founded? Freedom to practice religion? Hmmmmmmmmm... now, I know America was founded by White, Christian Slave owners who wanted to be free... but come on!
I have been a Pagan since I was 13. I'm 26 now. I've been a solitary practitioner of Wicca, been part of a Coven, been initiated as a Druid, and now I follow Maeberian Wicca (for those who don't know, it's a belief and reverence for Queen Maeb, the Celtic Queen of Magic). I was Roman Catholic until I was 13. I'm not going to go into detail on WHY I became a Pagan, as I believe it's irrelevant unless we want to get into the whole "My Religion is better than yours".
In my 13 years following an Earth Based, Nature Worshipping religion, not once have I danced around with a lit lighter in my hand, howled at the moon, performed ANY sort of sacrifice, or summoned demons or communed with the "Devil". Referring to a Pagan Sacred site as hilarious? Well, we could say the same thing about the Vatican. What religion needs it's own city dedicated to God?
As far as would I want an officer who dances around a fire chanting to owls and "who dances around a circle of stones in the woods carrying a lighted candle" leading me into combat? Absolutely. On the same note, would I have a problem with a male homosexual Marine standing next to me in Afghanistan, watching my back? Sure. His religion, his sexual orientation, his beliefs have NOTHING to do with how well he can shoot, or if I can trust him to do his job. If his beliefs were against killing, war, or the Military he wouldn't be there in the first place.
I'm sick of all this controversy of following a "Devil's Religion". In my opinion, any religion that follows a God who says "Kill these people" is a "Devil Following Religion". I don't remember the Wiccans ever going to a foreign country and killing thousands of people (I.E. the Crusades). I don't remember Pagans ever capturing "Suspected" Christians and torturing them into confessions. I don't remember Pagans ever standing on a street corner protesting against the rights of other religions. On the other hand, I do seem to remember hearing about 10,000 women that were captured, killed, and tortured for being "Witches" in a 200 year span. I do remember reading about the Church invading the "Holy Land" looking for the "Holy Grail". and I do see ALOT of preachers, pastors, priests, and reverends on the street corner trying to push a bible into my hand, then telling me I'm going to hell for politely denying it.
I'm not anti-religion on any aspect. I respect a persons right to any religion. Believe the way you want, that's one of the beautiful things about our country. However, before you decide to say something is "hilarious", "Contrary to good order and discipline", or wondering how far it should be "tolerated", you might want to look at what people of your own belief system are doing. After all, Roman Catholicism is investigating a bunch of priests who have been sexually abusing children for years. (Then again, a religion where you have to kneel in front of a 50 year old man in a dress while you engage in the metaphysical equivalent of cannibalism is off the wall as far as I'm concerned). I'm sorry, but eating the "Body of Christ" and drinking the "Blood of Christ" sounds a bit too much like cannibalism to me. Might want to check your own faith before you throw admonitions out at us.
As far as this former politician goes... who is he to decide what is contrary to good order and discipline? Has he served? Has he worn a uniform? Has he ever stood beside men and women of the greatest military in the world? Has he ever been denyed the same rights he fought for if he has? Unless he can answer yes to those questions, please do America a favor, stop making us all look retarded and SHUT THE &**& UP!!!
Posted by: Sgt. Burtan Lafleur USMC | February 21, 2010 10:39 PM
Posted by: llewelly | February 22, 2010 12:12 AM
I can't figure out how he can have a guy standing beside him watching his back. That's like talking behind someone's back to their face. The riddle leads to madness.
Granted, I enjoy semantics. It's a game that I play with myself. I'm ever so lonely.
Posted by: First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States | February 22, 2010 12:16 AM
Wait, that was my comment. Obviously. The First Amendment, ironically, can't speak.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | February 22, 2010 12:18 AM
MO - I believe Bernard Wooley (The Minister for Administrative Affairs, Jim Hacker's, Personal Private Secretary) had a similar problem involving 'looking someone in the eye' whilst 'stabbing them in the back'. It can be done, but you've gotta be really friendly with them.
As to 'standing beside someone' and 'watching their back', they could be standing side by side but facing opposite directions, or, of course, one could use mirrors, or ...
Woo Hoo! All aboard the semantic roundabout. :) - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | February 22, 2010 12:49 AM
Isn't semantics fun? It's like a boardgame...but the board is in your head.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | February 22, 2010 3:09 AM
No, the BORED is in your head.
Posted by: 10,000li | February 22, 2010 4:14 AM
10,000k - "... BORED is in your head"?
I need that like I need a hole in my head. - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | February 22, 2010 7:07 AM